I first heard about this issue a couple of years ago in a webinar at the D2B Alliance website. Since then I have seen it several times in my own EMS system.
I also mentioned it when IÂ commentedÂ on:
According to that study the most common factors associated with false positives statements were:
- A specific brand of one of three monitors used in the system
- Sinus tachycardia
- Missing lead recording on 12-lead printout
- Atrial fibrillation
- Female gender
- Poor ECG baseline
- A discussion ensues during
The authors make this important statement:
Poor ECG baseline and failure to record all 12 leads for machine algorithm interpretation are false-positive associated variables that can be addressed by improved quality in field acquisition of 12-leads.
It can’t be said often enough! That’s why I’m always harping on achieving excellent data quality!
The authors continue:
Variables more difficult to address are sinus tachycardia and atrial fibrillation, which had a tendency to be wrongly interpreted by machine algorithm as acute MI.
In response to that statement I made this comment:
â€œIt would be interesting to know if they are including atrial flutter in with atrial fibrillation. Either way the message is clear. The specificity of the computerized interpretive algorithms is highest when a tachycardia is not present.â€
The reason I questioned whether or not atrial flutter was included with atrial fibrillation is becauseÂ I have seen atrial flutter trigger a false-positive computerized interpretive statementÂ on several occasions.
Consider these cases that occurred in the past week.
In this case the paramedic immediately realized the ***ACUTE MI SUSPECTED*** message was being caused by underlying atrial flutter. A â€œSTEMI Alertâ€ was not called from the field and the patient was not sent to the cath lab.
This case was a little more difficult because 2:1 atrial flutter more difficult to recognize than 4:1 atrial flutter. It also must be said that this patient was â€œsickerâ€ and presented very much like ACS. A â€œSTEMI Alertâ€ was called from the field and the patient ended up in the cath lab. No significant lesions were noted with angiography.
The point isnâ€™t to blame the paramedic from the second case. A board certified emergency physician and a cardiologist both had to agree that this patient needed emergent angiography.
Itâ€™s easy to criticize individual paramedics especially when theyâ€™re from other EMS systems. Whatâ€™s hard is to create quality improvement feedback mechanisms so that every call can be a learning opportunity.
There are two kinds of EMS systems in this world: those that make mistakes and those that have no idea whether or not they make mistakes. Strive to be the former because anyone can be the latter.